Is death a trick? Proclaiming so would be arrogant and improper, occupying a body that has the capacity to write this, and, as such, lacking the experience of death, or at least a conscious memory of it, recallable at will, which would be an inescapable requirement to make this assertion. Each and every living being stores in itself a concept of what life and what death "is", and the sovereign nature of these lamentations is : PROFOUND. This is a key element. The concept that you have of life and death is YOUR concept. It is YOUR unique concept of these things. It seems as life produces living beings, so they can build in themselves unique models and concepts of what life and death are, and this is how life itself seems to "happen" and find for itself function and entertainment, simply by storing in itself these individual and super-sovereign models on what existence in this world with physical attributes to it, "is". Life watches its own infinite mirror images by the infinite number of projections continuously created and maintained by the living beings that it - life itself - expresses itself through.

This existence with physical attributes to it, that threatens with the shadow of death, also is an existence that invites, maybe, even urges you to cultivate the most functional and beneficial energies in yourself, because the prospect of impending death certainly seems to be a very efficient inspirator to make the life you have here have SOME KIND of function. In a neutral sense, it does not matter what the function is, what matters, is to find the function, to play with, to entertain life. Finding the function requires effort.

There is no other choice than to find and submit to the function, because causing harm requires no true effort, and the most and the minimum you CAN and SHOULD do, is to exhibit the most valiant efforts you are capable to. Nothing less is sufficient from you, and nothing greater is required from you. You live to make efforts, or, to fail at them. Not doing the efforts is a waste of life, and a waste of death.

From the perspective of mere life, it does not seem to be economical to eradicate a perfectly valid living being along with the models and the inner worlds it constructed in itself - unique constructs, mind us - so my theory is that death is a trick and a humble agent, a trick of life and an agent of life, mere life's method to inspire you to do things that may turn out to be beneficial to your surrounding cosmoses and related living beings.

From the perspective of life, it does not make sense to end life with death. Death does not make sense, once life became evident. Death only makes sense if it is the beginning of something new a human has no immediate touch with when in a physical body, and the attributes death flatters - unknown, mysterious - seem to be established by life, so the living being's urge to exhibit its efforts, is guaranteed, because it - the physical living being - is subjected to the shadow of death. This recognition, of being subjected to impending and guaranteed death, also is capable to shape the model one builds in oneself regarding life and death. Life grows richer all the time, no matter what patterns you build in it. You can not escape it. You add to IT. A life that stops with death is a life to laugh at.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

A thought seems to be the fundamental building block of what may be called the raw language of expression. Whenever a thought is formed, the consorting urge/drive to express the thought, is born. An unexpressed thought has no other agenda than fulfilling its constant urge to be refined and expressed or to be dismissed and be left alone. It is with intention I refrain from the word "forgotten." Will the thought you had be forgotten if you choose to release it, or, is there a metaphorical paper it will be eternally recorded upon? What makes you think that the text you delete does not get recorded instead? Just joking, of course. Wait, am I?

Whatever form, temper and aspiration your non-expressed thought has, it has the necessary ability to influence reality simply by existing. In this regard, it is of no difference if you choose to express the thought. The function of expressing a thought is nothing less and nothing more than satisfying the nature of thought. Thought seeks to be expressed, yet not all of them are worth expressing. How can you tell if a thought is not worth expressing? Well, THAT thought would be worth expressing!

It seems safe to state that the proper thought is a thought worth having and cultivating, regardless of its spiritual direction. It should be able to give something to you, or it should be able to take something away from you. Note: taking something away is not always an offensive or hostile act. You may be able to take away the harmful form of fear from someone which is not necessarily wanted by its resonator. Taking away the concept of beauty from someone would be much more challenging. And totally unnecessary,too. But the attempt could have entertainment value, which is of absolutely focal importance.

There seems to be no ultimate significance if the thought is nice or negativistic. What important is, is the thought itself and its potential to influence reality. Notice that there is not a single thing other than thoughts that can influence reality, and here is how: all actions are originating from thoughts. All that is an element of the outside world you can relate to: has a consorting thought behind it.

The outside world-, more precisely: the model of the outside world one walks/thinks around with, has a tremendous influence on what the thought itself can be. What you can come up with, is dependent on the quality of the inner model you have of the consensus reality.

One might state that one has the perfect model of consensus reality. But there is no movement, no development, no flux in something like a perfect model - perfect model is an oxymoron, anyway - as there is no further function to a perfect model.

Perfection is a limit. Perfection is THE limit.

In other words: the perfect model of consensus reality exists indeed, and it is called consensus reality. It is the model of itself, working. It is working by the constant effort of all sentient beings that it contains, each trying to decipher consensus and its infinite aspects. Maybe, JUST maybe: creating it by the process.

What all this gives us? In my current opinion, it gives us great and proper freedom - nevertheless the promise of it - and invites us to seek out methods to be able to construct more involved models of what can be done.

There is no limit to what you can think.

Because, in reality - hah! - everything can be done. If not in a form of existence that has physical characteristics, then you can do all you can think of inside your mind. Doing something inside your mind is necessarily more than not doing it at all, though it surely is less than doing it for - real. What you are lacking here is the availability of stimuli. You are making a model of the most fruity pastime you can come up with, and the only thing preventing you from living that reality is the lack of the proper stimuli for that. On the other hand, if the stimuli would be there, then you would have no problem living the best reality you can invent, correct? You have the model of the stimuli, as you have the model of the taste of chocolate. Once chocolate - stimuli - is present and you choose to taste it, suddenly reality becomes more palpable since you are occupied with living through the sensation of the chocolate as opposed of being occupied with constructing the taste and the numerous other qualities of the chocolate. In other words: the chocolate can have an autonomous existence that is not dependent on you. It is as yours as it is anyone else's. THAT is proper chocolate.

In the example above, what was relevant to our present lamentation, was the ability to construct the model of the chocolate by utilizing thought. Imagine for a moment that you are not an aspect of consensus reality - which you are if you are reading this, sorry to shock you to the core and beyond - but consensus reality itself. Thank you for sticking around! Once you are consensus reality and you find a sentient being in "yourself", then what benefit you can have by giving space and time for that particular sentient being? The question contained the answer. Once again: what benefit you can have by giving space and time for that particular sentient being? The question contained the answer.

You can have benefit by giving space and time for that particular sentient being.

In fact, this is the only way you can gain benefit by. If you are consensus reality, then the only way for you to be entertained is to give place for absolutely every thought and every emotion and every sentient being. The question is not "why should you?", the question is "why you should not?"

From this point on, thought seems to be showing an intimate nature. Thought seems to be an instrument in the skillful hands of consensus reality, an instrument that seeks to construct and offer relevant models OF-, and TO what it was made of. One can not help but theorize the existence of a mysterious hidden source which is in the position of giving ultimate function to all it contains and it is not acceptable to regard this mysterious source anything less than a mysterious source indeed, granted you are lacking direct contact with it, except of course of reckoning it as a mystery.

It seems safe to state that the form of existence the human condition is subjected to - matters of thoughts as flesh and emotion - consorts with this need/ability/constraint to conceptualize about the nature of reality, building it, refining it in the process. No matter how proper, how beautiful, how horrendous, how flawed your concept of reality is - what matters is that you HAVE a concept and reality gives space and time for it, growing itself by the process. Cool, huh?

In this regard, the relevance of you questioning your own necessity is nothing less and nothing more than you questioning your own necessity. This relevance is huge, as there is no greater power in the universe than the one who grants you the freedom to resonate:

I don't need this!

Then the question ensues: what are you in the need of? What is it you think you could be operating more efficiently with? Not just in physical reality, but as a soul. In my current opinion, as soon as one confronts this question, then it is a tame suggestion that answers for the question can be found, if sought properly. What is a proper method of seeking? Easy: the one that yields a result you can form benefit of. Not an answer to comfort the individual soul, but an answer to comfort ALL.

Keep in mind though that there is no "real" result, because result forms where you stop at. As such, an intelligence is nothing less and nothing more than a mirror of its perceived surroundings and its value should be determined based on the beauty-, or on the horror of the pictures it is capable of revealing. A beautiful and a horrific image is an equally valuable addition to the whole which can be whole only if accepted as nothing less than rampant potentiality.

There is as much beauty in beauty as you can put in it. There is as much horror in horror as you can put in it.

There is as much beauty in beauty as you can get away with.There is as much horror in horror as you can get away with.

Remember, there is no result, because result forms where you stop at.

In the projection of this, what is important, is the quality of the thought, and this also is the factor that determines if a thought is worth having-, perfecting or sharing. The total of these thoughts and feelings in flux are creating the model of reality and the question ensues: how real the model is? And a possible and playful answer for this promises great fun: it is as real as it gets.